We estimate the elasticity of vacancy duration with respect to posted wages, using data from the near-universe of online job adverts in the United Kingdom. Our research design leverages firm-level wage policies that are plausibly exogenous to hiring difficulties on specific job vacancies, and controls for job and marketlevel fixed-effects. Wage policies are defined based on external information on pay settlements, or on sharp, internally-defined, firm-level changes. In our preferred specifications, we estimate duration elasticities in the range −3 to −5, which are substantially larger than the few existing estimates.

Using micro data for the UK and Germany, we provide novel evidence on the cyclical properties of reservation wages and estimate that wages and reservation wages are characterised by moderate and very similar degrees of cyclicality. Several job search models that quantitatively match the cyclicality of wages tend to overpredict the cyclicality in reservation wages. We show that this puzzle can be addressed when reservation wages display backward-looking reference dependence. Model calibrations that allow for reference dependence match the empirically observed cyclicality of wages and reservation wages for plausible value of all other model parameters.

There is a widespread belief that work is less secure than in the past, that an increasing share of workers are part of the “precariat.” It is hard to find much evidence for this in objective measures of job security, but perhaps subjective measures show different trends. This paper shows that in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, workers feel as secure as they ever have in the past 30 years. This is partly because job insecurity is very cyclical and (pre-COVID) unemployment rates very low, but there is also no clear underlying trend towards increased subjective measures of job insecurity. This conclusion seems robust to controlling for the changing mix of the labor force, and it is true for specific subsets of workers.

This paper shows that the United Kingdom since 1975 has exhibited a pattern of job polarization with rises in employment shares in the highest- and lowest-wage occupations. This is not entirely consistent with the idea of skill-biased technical change as a hypothesis about the impact of technology on the labor market. We argue that the “routinization” hypothesis recently proposed by Autor, Levy, and Murnane (2003) is a better explanation of job polarization, though other factors may also be important. We show that job polarization can explain one-third of the rise in the log(50/10) wage differential and one-half of the rise in the log(90/50).